[timey]

Jeff in reply to your post which I cannot quote either without blacklisted term error message appearing... (this means that all posting functions from thread board are no longer working for me from my phone, (which is all I have), only the reply function from recent posts board is operational now)

Aside from the necessity for a redefinition of G...

...with regards to t1,t2,t3, this would usually describe a time sequence of events, so let's be clear that this t1,t2,t3 are describing 'how' time passes rather than the passing of time.  In fact we can state that t1,t2,t3 are time calculations that are dependant on the geometric space coordinates, which are then totted up to result in the time aspect of the spacetime matrix.

It is my 'loose' understanding that matrix maths are an amalgamation of several or more aspects that are sliding scales in relation to each other.

The proposed inverted  time dilation for open space is faster near mass and slower far from mass.

The GR gravitational time dilation for mass in relation to mass is slower near mass and faster out in space.

SR motion related time dilation is slower for a faster motion, and faster for a slower motion.

We find that our time matrix has sliding scales.  If you could calculate a 1 hertz relationship to energy, and a 1 energy unit relationship to time periods, I'd suggest this would be the way to proceed.

As to a redefinition of G or g, you made a very interesting post that I've reposted twice now concerning sigma wave.  I can put this in context again if you like, but you turned your nose up last time.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

At some point in the proceedings I reckon we will have the equations required to build a TARDIS.

[alancalverd]

Timey: Can't quote for some reason - keeps coming up with "blacklisted term" but anyway

kinetic energy E = (mv^2)/2 where v is velocity.

If m = 0 then E = hf.

Since everything in the observable universe is either a massive particle or a photon, that should cover all the maths you need.

[timey]

Alan - Thanks for confirming that it as simply as I had thought...

In my model kinetic energy must be subtracted, or proportionally subtracted to calculate SR motion related time dilation, and where rest mass is zero, kinetic energy doesn't apply.  And... Planck's h constant is a time dilation related function.

Jeff - My model, when calculated, should reveal (if I am correct), that it is indeed possible to warp the SR time dilation aspect in relation to the proposed inverted gravitational  time dilation aspect, and travel distance in open space a lot faster than we currently do...
Although this will in practice be a type of time travel of sorts, it will not possible to arrive in the future, or revisit the past, only to initiate the conditions to make the journey distance in a lesser amount of time passing... but I am now running before we have even learned to crawl, so...

Alan, Jeff, or anyone else - I guess my question is:

Is anyone going to help me calculate this model?

[alancalverd]

If you can explain it, and it makes dimensional sense, the calculation will be trivial.

To start, just take one case - the static clock at altitude (no need to mess with kinetic energy!) - and explain in words why it seems to run fast when observed from the ground.

[timey]

A clock at altitude is subject to additional gravity potential energy.  (the mass of the clock is comprised of atomic structures that are comprised of particle components, and it is these particle components that are increased in potential energy... and this increase in potential energy will occur proportionally to the energy relationship that these component particles of atomic structures maintain within their structures, and the equivalence principle is therefore maintained, and physical cause is given for an observer aging in keeping with his clock)
This additional potential energy increases the frequency of the clocks energy transitions.

The clock is at this point stationary relative to the comparison clock on the ground...  And in that any kinetic energy factor that is occurring due to the motion of both clocks co-moving with the planet Earth's motion, this kinetic energy factor is equal for both clocks.

If we then zoom a clock into motion relative to the stationary clock, (in a uniform gravity field for simplicity), then additional KE will increase the frequency of the clocks energy transitions...  We know this is wrong via experiment and observation, but not to worry, KE is a dissipating energy.  There is every reason to subtract it either entirely or, more likely proportionally, to calculate SR time dilation effect.

Its just that one would have to find another means of calculating the observation of light, which I have suggested, and given the example above of adding kinetic energy to mass for a slower rate of time, the concept of calculating kinetic energy for light is rather dubiously conceived anyway.

[alancalverd]

This additional potential energy increases the frequency of the clocks energy transitions.

Unsubstantiated poppycock.

If increasing gravitational potential increased the binding energy of electrons in atoms, things would shrink and get stronger at altitude. Do they? 

[timey]

Erm, you seem to have forgotten that this 'new' concept incorporates a redefinition of gravitational acceleration.  The mass of the electron will not be increased by the addition of potential energy...
(As a side issue - Pete has posted elsewhere that currents physics states that the concept of relativistic mass isn't increased by the addition of potential energy.  Can you confirm if this is true?)
...the additional potential energy will appear as though it is additional gravitational acceleration, but really it is just quicker time, and the binding will happen quicker due to this quicker time, not due to additional gravitational force.

Therefore there will be no shrinkage, as you suggest.

[alancalverd]

Nothing to do with the mass of the electron. I'm simply examining your assertion that the quantum levels in an atom or molecule are affected by gravitational potential. 

[timey]

So why would more energy cause a greater strength of binding and result in shrinkage?

[alancalverd]

That's what binding energy does. It holds the atoms together. It also determines the wavelength of the photon emissions associated with electron transitions, so if one alters, so must the other.

[timey]

...and what is the opposing force that stops the atomic structure from collapsing?

Given that all energy relationships will increase proportionally?

[alancalverd]

...and what is the opposing force that stops the atomic structure from collapsing?'

quantum mechanics

Given that all energy relationships will increase proportionally?

bollocks (see "quantum mechanics" above)

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Aside from the necessity for a redefinition of G...

As to a redefinition of G or g, you made a very interesting post that I've reposted twice now concerning sigma wave.  I can put this in context again if you like, but you turned your nose up last time.

Here G is not the gravitational constant. It is a function with a set of parameters. I am awaiting your instructions on how to define the expression that the function will use.

[timey]

...and what is the opposing force that stops the atomic structure from collapsing?'

quantum mechanics

Given that all energy relationships will increase proportionally?

bollocks (see "quantum mechanics" above)

I'm sorry, the meaning of your  reply is unclear...

I am saying that an atomic structure that has a binding energy that holds the structure together either incorporates, or has an opposing energy that stops the structure from collapsing upon itself.

If the energy that holds the structure together is increased by gravity potential energy, the energy that prevents the atom from collapsing will also be increased proportionally.

ie: No shrinkage.

Wots with the poppycock and bollocks mate?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I'm sure you will find the Poppycock and Bollocks paper somewhere on arxiv.

[timey]

Aside from the necessity for a redefinition of G...

As to a redefinition of G or g, you made a very interesting post that I've reposted twice now concerning sigma wave.  I can put this in context again if you like, but you turned your nose up last time.

Here G is not the gravitational constant. It is a function with a set of parameters. I am awaiting your instructions on how to define the expression that the function will use.

I do not understand the mechanics of how you will mathematically use the G function in relation to the spatial and time dimensions.

I just see spatial coordinates giving gravity values being plugged into the 3 dimensional time matrix, and the sliding scales of energy levels of the time matrix being transposed to time values and totted up to give us the 'proper time' at any given spatial coordinate.

[timey]

I'm sure you will find the Poppycock and Bollocks paper somewhere on arxiv.

Good, good, and back to the subject matter perhaps?  A non collapsing atomic structure?

[alancalverd]

If the energy that holds the structure together is increased by gravity potential energy, the energy that prevents the atom from collapsing will also be increased proportionally.

Part of your problem is that the atom has no idea of its gravitational potential since that is only defined with respect to an arbitrary body of which it has no knowledge.

A hydrogen atom on the moon has gravitational potential  x joules with respect to the surface of the earth, y with respect to the sun, z with respect to Mars, and -a with respect to a point in free space at infinity. How does it know what energy corresponds to its own hyperfine 1s split (the "21 cm line")? The only rational answer is that the emitted photon energy is constant everywhere and the gravitational frequency shift is dependent on the relative position of the observer. 

For what it's worth, you can also untangle photons and clocks by considering "hydrogen 1s". The photon frequency is about 1.4 GHz, so can be used both as a detectable radio wave (astronomers love it) and as the timebase for a practical clock.

[alancalverd]

I'm sure you will find the Poppycock and Bollocks paper somewhere on arxiv.

Not just "somewhere" but almost everywhere! They are very prolific authors, particularly in the socail sciences. I believe they have been extensively studied by Dunning and Kruger, who were intrigued by the vast quantity and negligible quality of their output.